i5? i5! Core i5 would be the brand name Intel's mainstream desktop derivatives of the Nehalem architecture based on the Lynnfield core would carry. It is similar to its big brother, the Core i7 for the most of the part except for a few differences:

Some more machinery from the northbridge migrated to the CPU, such as the PCI-Express root complex

The newer LGA 1160 socket

Lynnfield continues to have four x86 processing cores with HyperThreading enabled, with 256 KB of L2 cache per core and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. Chiphell got its hands on not only the processor, but also a compatible motherboard and run a quick preliminary evaluation of the processor. The processor, clocked at 2,127 MHz, was put though SuperPi, wPrime, Cinebench, Fritz Chess, and 3DMark Vantage. The processor is expected to release in the second half of 2009.

Ok, Lynnfield and Havendale both have QPI, but it's only between the CPU core and the integrated northbridge. The northbridge is then using DMI to talk to the ICH. I don't know where this misconception is coming from, but all the new Intel processors will use QPI.

9400m/9600mGT 256MB - almost always using 9400m due to heat and battery

Hard Disk(s):

Corsair Nova V64 - only need 30GB for my install

Optical Drive:

There's one, just don't know when I last used it!

LCD/CRT Model:

1440x900 15" MBP screen + 1680x1050 20" Dell TFT

Case:

Crumpler Dark Side to protect the MBP

Sound Card:

Crappy stock on-board one

Power Supply:

Big battery and small power brick

Software:

OS X SL, Chrome, Eclipse, Parallels, VS 2010 EE

It makes upgrades extremely difficult. You'd have to buy an extra stick of RAM to take advantage of triple-channel memory, along with a new motherboard, to complement the new CPU, if going from i5 to i7 (I guess that's how people would upgrade, rather than going the other way).
It's a huge outlay, and for not a huge increase in performance, the i7 920 as mentioned, will come down in price, and at the moment, it's not even all that expensive. I can either buy a Core 2 Quad, or an i7 920 for similar prices, the only thing making it an expensive purchase, is the need for DDR3, and the pricey X55 based motherboards.

It makes it even more difficult, because the average consumer won't understand why they can't upgrade from an i5 to an i7 directly, without upgrading the motherboard.

The extra memory stick won't make too big of a deal, as you can run i7 in dual-channel without much of a performance hit.

What disappoints me, and I'm sure this is one of the reasons Intel is doing this, is that you can't take a low end processor, stick it in a high end board and overclock it to hell and back to make it perform like a high-end. Because, now the low end uses totally different motherboards, and the best motherboards will be reserved for only the i7.

It makes it even more difficult, because the average consumer won't understand why they can't upgrade from an i5 to an i7 directly, without upgrading the motherboard.

The extra memory stick won't make too big of a deal, as you can run i7 in dual-channel without much of a performance hit.

What disappoints me, and I'm sure this is one of the reasons Intel is doing this, is that you can't take a low end processor, stick it in a high end board and overclock it to hell and back to make it perform like a high-end. Because, now the low end uses totally different motherboards, and the best motherboards will be reserved for only the i7.

Click to expand...

yes is disappointing for end-user who is forced to buy new hardware for a minor upgrade...

is like a conspiracy between cpu producers and mb manufacturer but other way they die

Exactly, I'd avoid the i5 platform and wait for at least another generation before upgrading, you could pick up any revised i7 40nm/35nm chip plus newer boards when they, along with DDR3 becomes much cheaper!

Exactly, I'd avoid the i5 platform and wait for at least another generation before upgrading, you could pick up any revised i7 40nm/35nm chip plus newer boards when they along with DDR3 becomes much cheaper!

Click to expand...

I'm sticking with my Socket 775 setup until at least the end of 09. And really, Intel will have 3 sockets going at the same time, as they are going to keep 775 alive for a little while until i5 is established in the market.

Personally, if they were going to do the two socket thing, I would have like for them to just keep 775 going, and only release i7 processors.

I really don't like Intel's idea of releasing two seperate sockets with the new generation.

Click to expand...

I was going to write a short paragraph in total agreement with you, however I wont because this cr*p annoys me sooooo much I would go ranting around the internet for a week and at my age that leads to coronary failure, in itself perhaps not too important, apart from the fact that it's nearly Christmas and I wanna be alive to open me presents, damn difficult to get all that sticky tape off when your dead!

Depending on the price to performance ratio, I don't really see this as a valuable option to remember to customers, however I'll wait until the reviews & results are in. Not keen on these i5s to be honest.

Super Pi score just like on my old E6400@3200Mhz :F
Not worth buying when the i7 920 price goes down (someday)
Also possible rival for Phenom 1.

Click to expand...

Ah, but this thing is at only 2.1Ghz. AND this (SuperPI) is a single threaded benchmark.

Mix in an OC of 40% and gains from HT and you can expect 50% improvement, CLOCK4CLOCK. If it can manage that AND be more power efficient, then yes, Intel has indeed got a much better starting platform for the average PC owner and corporate PC. But, of course, there isnt the ZOMG of the i7.

WAIT, I dont remember the i7 pulling 50% improvement C4C. So maybe C4C the i5 and i7 are pretty much equal. Only in superOCability or on memory bandwidth intensive applications is i7 going to pull away from i5.

Ah, but this thing is at only 2.1Ghz. AND this (SuperPI) is a single threaded benchmark.

Mix in an OC of 40% and gains from HT and you can expect 50% improvement, CLOCK4CLOCK. If it can manage that AND be more power efficient, then yes, Intel has indeed got a much better starting platform for the average PC owner and corporate PC. But, of course, there isnt the ZOMG of the i7.

WAIT, I dont remember the i7 pulling 50% improvement C4C. So maybe C4C the i5 and i7 are pretty much equal. Only in superOCability or on memory bandwidth intensive applications is i7 going to pull away from i5.

Actually, thats quite impressive. I get about 10000 xCPU score on my Q6600 @2.7. They get 25% better score at 2.1GHz. CLOCK4CLOCK that is over 50% improvement. HATS OFF if they can pull that off with lower power requirements.